Skip to comments.ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective'
Posted on 08/25/2009 6:54:55 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
ABC's Brian Ross and NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night each listed some al Qaeda plots uncovered via CIA interrogations, but both balked when it came to vindicating former Vice President Dick Cheney on whether enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) led to information which prevented attacks.
Nowhere in the reports...does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of harsh tactics, Ross declared on World News in citing reports Cheney requested be released. NBC's Andrea Mitchell cited only Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and related how administration officials say there is no way to know whether the same information could have be obtained from him without waterboarding or whether he would have given it up sooner had he been handled differently.
On FNC, however, The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, quoting from the just-released 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, pointed out how even it noted regarding Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the terrorist behind the USS Cole attack, following the use of EIT's, he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the EIT's. Hayes asserted: I mean, it doesn't get clearer than that. So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
He certainly made the trains run on time.
I so go for Cheney. The libs are going to be made to look very very stupid.
The libs (socialists) are too stupid to know they are stupid.
you want to know whats scary....
Right now we could have in detention a terrorist that has information pertaining to the next attack on America, but because we will not employ the use of every technique we may not be able to get the information from them in time to stop it.
What possibly can Obama say to assuage the fears of American’s after the next attack on our soil? What could he say to ease the pain of the familys of the victims?
He certainly will not be able to say we did everything possible to make sure it didn’t happen, because he has taken many options off the table.
There use to be a time in this country when Top Secret meant something, the Liberals and the media have destroyed that notion forever.
The real tragedy in all of this is that when terror visits our shores it just doesn’t affect its enablers.
Comment makes no since. This has nothing to do with socialism or fascism. These are known terrorists who are plotting to kill millions if they can. Using techniques that scare them into providing information without doing any permanent harm hardly qualifies as fascism. A fascist would have just started cutting off body parts.
This is the libs favorite breakfast cereal.
The one thing we do know is that the current “administration” has done everything possible to weaken American and to try to destroy it.” I look forward to the day when we first drive them from office and then arrest them for treason.
Aye, missed my point. The crux of the argument isn’t whether this stuff worked, it’s whether that’s a direction we want to go as a nation. I, for one, don’t care what the CIA does abroad as long as it stays abroad. This much power requires the kind of responsibility and restraint the CIA/OSS has never really shown. It’s quite a cliff to be diving off of.
No, I'm sure Khalid just gave up the info just because he was a good guy.
I understand, but given 9-11 and the threats we were under, I think the Bush Administration did show responsibility and restraint. There is always a slippery slope to any policy, but I see no fault in what was done here. These people were real terrorists. Certainly if they started doing this to associates or just people that might have contacts with terrorists, it starts to get ugly.
The libs keep pushing this nonsensical bit of drivel that just flies in the face of common sense.
Here's what happened: We asked (nicely) Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to reveal information about terrorists and terrorist plots. He gave us no such information. We started waterboarding him. He sang like a freaking canary. If you are a rational human being, you connect the dots (something they said George W. Bush was unable to do) and come to the conclusion that the enhanced interrogation technique was fruitful, and was clearly the proximate cause of his giving up the information.
However, if you are not a rational human being (i.e., you are a liberal) you say:
"We don't know that the waterboarding is what got him to talk." You also say, with exactly zero evidence, that maybe we could have used other means to get him to talk. (I guess if being nice to him didn't work, maybe being realllly, realllly nice to him would have worked.)
Exactly my sentiment. I’ve always wondered just how many detainees in Gitmo were actual terrorists and how many were glorified goat herders. when you start getting into KGB tactics in the name of national security, you better be damn sure he’s a legit terrorist.
So... Did Cheney ever reveal what was stopped? Why doesn’t he bring the stopped attacks up at every turn?
KGB would laugh if they had to use waterboarding. Let’s be a bit realistic here.
“I, for one, dont care what the CIA does abroad as long as it stays abroad.”
“Ive always wondered just how many detainees in Gitmo were actual terrorists and how many were glorified goat herders. when you start getting into KGB tactics in the name of national security, you better be damn sure hes a legit terrorist.”
Can you reconcile these two comments for me?
But, but, but.... if we had only said “Pretty Please” or perhaps “Simon Says”, then we know that the terrorists (oops excuse me, the “undocumented combatants”) would have co-operated fully! /sarc
Khalid Shaykh Mohammad provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen who Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammads information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.
August 12, 2009, eh?
Another “Twofortea” (zotted) “out of the box” “conservative”.
IOW, another self- impressed troll.
Great one! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.